IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 19TH POUSHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 46840 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

MARIYUMMA SULTHAN AGED 55 YEARS W/O. AL HAJI SHAIK YOUSAF SULTHA, VENNIPARAMBIL, ROSE LANE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DT., PIN - 683108 BY ADV A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY HM@MHA.GOV.IN, PIN - 110001

2 NODAL OFFICER STATE CYBER CRIME CELL, GUJARAT STATE, GANDHINAGAR. 7TH FLOOR, KARMYOGI BHAVAN, SECTOR-

10-A, BLOCK NO-2, GANDHINAGAR - GUJARAT. CC-

CID@GUJARAT.GOV.IN, PIN - 382018

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER POLICE STATION, SURAT, 1ST FLOOR, OLD HEAD QUARTER, NEAR ICHCHHANATH MAHADEV MANDIR, ATHWALINES, SURAT, GUJARAT, PIN - 395001

4 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RBI, BAKERY JUNCTION, NANDAVANAM, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA CMS.BOTRIVANDRUM@RBI.ORG.IN, PIN - 695033

5 FEDERAL BANK LTD.

THOTTAKKATTUKARA BRANCH, PARACKAL TOWERS, UC COLLEGE P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 683102 OTHER PRESENT:

DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA STANDING COUNSEL- SRI MOHUN JACB GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2025 The writ petition is filed to direct the fifth respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No. 12210100248922.

2. The petitioner’s case is that, she is the holder of the above bank account with the fifth respondent bank. To the petitioner’s surprise, the fifth respondent has frozen the petitioner's bank account pursuant to a requisitions received from the third respondent. The action of the fifth respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that there is no disputed amount. However, there is a lien marked on the petitioner's bank account. The said submission is recorded.

5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT

826] held as follows:

“ a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, are directed to confine the order of freeze against the accounts of the respective petitioners, only to the extent of the amounts mentioned in the order/requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioners to deal with their accounts, and transact therein, beyond that limit.

b. The respondent – Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the respective Banks as to whether freezing of accounts of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions will require to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

c. On the Banks receiving the afore information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and complete necessary action – either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be.

d. If, however, no information or intimation is received by their Banks in terms of directions (b) above, the petitioners or such among them, will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all their contentions in these Writ Petitions are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future.”

6. Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.

Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768], after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case (supra) and taking into consideration Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and the interpretation of Section 102 of the Code laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State o